Suman Poddar v. ITO

423 ITR 480High Court2020#1365 most cited

What is Suman Poddar v. ITO authority for?

The Assessing Officer's detailed findings regarding bogus long-term capital gains from penny stock transactions, established through objective examination of facts and circumstantial evidence, should not be overturned by appellate authorities without a thorough investigation or fresh inquiry.

84

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Suman Poddar v. ITO · Section 10(38) · Section 68 · Section 133(6) · bogus long term capital gain · LTCG exemption · penny stock · price rigging · preponderance of probability · Assessing Officer investigation · appellate authority powers · Sumati Dayal · demat account statement

Also reported as

112 Taxmann.com 329

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 10(38)Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 133(6)Section 147
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

price riggingbogus ltcgbogus long term capital gainpenny stocksection 10(38)paper companyentry operatorpreponderance of probabilitylong term capital gainsclosely held companyperiod of holdingretraction of statement

Judgments citing Suman Poddar v. ITO

Shri Uma Shanker Dhandhania, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer - 1(5), Kanpur

ITA 475/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 143(3)

…of the facts and documents, the conclusion arrived at by the AO in respect of the transaction in question, ought not to have been interfered with. In support of his submission, Mr. Hossain relies upon the judgment of this Court in Suman Poddar v. ITO, [2020] 423 ITR 480 (Delhi), and of the Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) Supp. (2) SCC 453. 9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred in holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers of the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to the findings of the AO. As a matter of fact, the demat account statement of t…

Deepak Kumar Agarwal, HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

ITA 222/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri B. P. Mundra (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘B’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 223/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2014-15 cuke Nilesh Agarwal HUF The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 39-40-41 Gyan Vihar, Nirman Ward 2(3), Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFHN7625H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 222/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2014-15 cuke Deepak Kumar Agar…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -12 vs. Smt. Bindu Garg

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/131/2020HC Delhi15 Jan 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

…the facts and documents, the conclusion arrived at by the AO in respect of the transaction in question, ought not to have been interfered with. In support of his submission, Mr. Hossain relies upon the judgment of this Court in Suman Poddar v. ITO, [2020] 423 ITR 480 (Delhi), and of the Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) Supp. (2) SCC 453. ITA 125/2020 and connected matters Page 7 of 10 9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred in holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers of the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to the findings…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-12 vs. Hardev Sahai Gupta ( Garg)

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/130/2020HC Delhi15 Jan 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

…the facts and documents, the conclusion arrived at by the AO in respect of the transaction in question, ought not to have been interfered with. In support of his submission, Mr. Hossain relies upon the judgment of this Court in Suman Poddar v. ITO, [2020] 423 ITR 480 (Delhi), and of the Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal v. CIT, (1995) Supp. (2) SCC 453. ITA 125/2020 and connected matters Page 7 of 10 9. Mr. Hossain further argues that the learned ITAT has erred in holding that the AO did not consider examining the brokers of the Respondent. He asserts that this holding is contrary to the findings…